5 ms·

Hmm. http://cdn.dailykanban.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TeslaGoodwill.jpg http://cdn.dailykanban.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TeslaG... (via https://yro.sl

by voiper1 10y ago

Hmm. http://cdn.dailykanban.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TeslaGoodwill.jpg http://cdn.dailykanban.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TeslaG... (via https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/09/2122208/tesla-suspension-breakage-its-not-the-crime-its-the-coverup https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/09/2122208/tesla-suspen...) On it's surface, that definitely looks like a full NDA: "don't speak of this" (IANAL) However, I can see Tesla's interpretation/spin: "It just means: we aren't admitting liability, don't sue us for this, and don't say we paid for part of the repairs" -- which doesn't include "don't report a safety issue". Still, it seems rather strongly worded for that...

emn13 10y ago
That agreement is completely unreasonable. "In accepting the Goodwill, you hereby release and discharge Tesla and related persons or entities from any and all claims or damages arising out of or in any way connected with any claims or incidents leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill." (etc, with similar language concerning talking about incidents.) in other words: we'll fix your car for you, but only if you keep quiet about a broadly and unclearly defined set of events, oh, and only if you agree not to hold us accountable for any wrongdoing on our part that's in any way "related or leading to" this agreement. That's absurd, and shameful, especially the excessively broad scope of the incidents and the fact that even actual wrongdoing by Tesla is protected.
- ghayes 10y ago
  Your quote and your statement don't make sense together. > but only if you keep quiet about a broadly and unclearly defined set of events Where are you reading that?
  - emn13 10y ago
    Read the rest of the agreement; the quote is merely an excerpt (which is why I followed it with "etc, with similar language concerning talking about incidents.") - similar language to that of the excerpt restricts other activities, not just claims.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  AFAIK that is pretty standard "We'll fix it for you if you don't sue us" language.
  - emn13 10y ago
    Standard doesn't mean it's right - and note that it's not just excluding liability over the repair but over a really broad and unclearly defined set of events.
- maldeh 10y ago
  we'll fix your car for you *for free. The customer can always choose to pay the standard repair cost and not sign any Goodwill waiver.
  - emn13 10y ago
    And that's really sleazy. Tesla may well have done nothing wrong, in which case this is a good deal. But they may also have made a negligent mistake "leading to" the repair, and Tesla might know that - the customer does not. So by using this excessively broad disclaimer, they gain the flexibility to escape liability not just where they're in the right, but also where they may have made costly mistakes - since clearly the it's in the best self-interest of the customer to accept the deal usually, and by the time they find out Tesla may have tricked them, they've already signed.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  we'll fix your car for you, but only if you keep quiet about [it] I think you're confused about the meaning of 'claims' which in this context means a legal claim; it's not referring to a blog or freedom of speech in any way preventing you from claiming things, just that you won't sue them over it.
- zamalek 10y ago
  What's shameful is that they need to protect against people taking advantage of their good will in the first place. If you were the customer in the absence of the agreement, after everything that Tesla had done at no cost, would you have taken them to court? In this case it's arguable that they would gone to court: the troll took to social media only because the agreement disallowed legal action. The troll used every possible tactic to his advantage, including an extreme degree of omission. This whole ordeal has inadvertently proven exactly why Tesla has this agreement. Lose when you do; lose when you don't. The agreement isn't there for people like me and you, it's there for people like Niedermayer.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Not taking them to court is one thing, not being able to talk about the agreement is another.
    - function_seven 10y ago
      I haven't seen the full agreement, but grandparent's quote contains no language that prevents the customer from talking about it.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        The agreement has this passage in it: "The Goodwill is being provided to you without any admission of liability or wrongdoing or acceptance of any facts by Tesla, and shall not be treated as or considered evidence of Tesla’s liability with respect to any claim or incidents. You agree to keep confidential our provision of the Goodwill, the terms of this agreement and the incidents or claims leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill. In accepting the Goodwill, you hereby release and discharge Tesla and related persons or entities from any and all claims or damages arising out of or in any way connected with any claims or incidents leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill. You further agree that you will not commence, participate or voluntarily aid in any action at law or in equity or any legal proceeding against Tesla or related persons or entities based upon facts related to the claims or incidents leading to or related to this Goodwill." Which could easily be interpreted by a consumer as barring them from discussing the whole affair, even with the authorities. Which led to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/safety-agency-chides-tesla-for-nondisclosure-agreements-with-customers-2016-06-09?siteid=yhoof2 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/safety-agency-chides-tesla-...
- tigershark 10y ago
  In other words: you should read more carefully whatever you quote given that the meaning is pretty clear. There is nothing in your quote about keeping quiet and, most importantly, if you don't want to accept the free repair you can still pay. It's really incredible how people pretend to have everything for free, and even when they can actually have it for free they manage to find a reason to complain. I have never ever seen any other car manufacturer paying for the suspensions repairs on a out-of-warranty 100k car.
  - trhway 10y ago
    > have never ever seen any other car manufacturer paying for the suspensions repairs on a out-of-warranty 100k car. It happens a lot. You could have just Googled. Manufacturer would pay for the repair, warranty or no warranty, if there was a defect. For example almost all of those 690000 cars were out-of-warranty at the time of the recall: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/toyota-recalls-690-000-vehicles-suspension-glitch-n214121 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/toyota-recalls-690-000... Tesla using NDA to prevent such situation is so childish. I hope Musk would fire that a-hole who came up with the idea (i really hope it wasn't Musk itself). Simple Google search brings this by the way, so there are definitely issues: https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-pulls-left-please-read https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-pulls-le... What important here is that it is not the issues itself that are main risk to the company - after all it is a young car company - it is how the company reacts to them, and such rotten actions like NDA is a really bad style which would cost a lot in the long run. `
    - tigershark 10y ago
      Your example is completely unrelated. This was not a recognised defect. If you really think that every car manufacturer does it then it should be trivial for you to find some source where a single car was repaired for free after 100k km for something that was not a recognised defect. You have plenty of time to prove your thesis.
      - trhway 10y ago
- azernik 10y ago
  That's a disclaimer of liability, not an NDA. It says "you can't sue us", not "you can't talk about it". This is specifically to avoid court arguments that the free repair is an admission of guilt (which, yes, is the kind of thing that happens in civil cases).
  - emn13 10y ago
    If you read my comment, you'll note that I'm merely quoting a part of the agreement. The full agreement is linked in case you're curious about the NDA terms. There have been quite a few commenters that haven't bothered to read even my short comment, let alone the (also rather short) agreement, yet still felt qualified to determine that the NDA clauses aren't present. They are. Personally, due to the overbroad scope I find these liability limiting clauses at least as objectionable as the NDA clauses.
  - malz 10y ago
    "You agree to keep confidential" is the key phrase.
malz 10y ago
"You agree to keep confidential ... the incidents or claims leading or related to our provision of the good will" certainly implies that I'm agreeing not to talk about the incident.

by voiper1 10y ago

emn13 10y ago

That agreement is completely unreasonable. "In accepting the Goodwill, you hereby release and discharge Tesla and related persons or entities from any and all claims or damages arising out of or in any way connected with any claims or incidents leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill." (etc, with similar language concerning talking about incidents.) in other words: we'll fix your car for you, but only if you keep quiet about a broadly and unclearly defined set of events, oh, and only if you agree not to hold us accountable for any wrongdoing on our part that's in any way "related or leading to" this agreement. That's absurd, and shameful, especially the excessively broad scope of the incidents and the fact that even actual wrongdoing by Tesla is protected.

ghayes 10y ago
Your quote and your statement don't make sense together. > but only if you keep quiet about a broadly and unclearly defined set of events Where are you reading that?
- emn13 10y ago
  Read the rest of the agreement; the quote is merely an excerpt (which is why I followed it with "etc, with similar language concerning talking about incidents.") - similar language to that of the excerpt restricts other activities, not just claims.
snovv_crash 10y ago
AFAIK that is pretty standard "We'll fix it for you if you don't sue us" language.
- emn13 10y ago
  Standard doesn't mean it's right - and note that it's not just excluding liability over the repair but over a really broad and unclearly defined set of events.
maldeh 10y ago
we'll fix your car for you *for free. The customer can always choose to pay the standard repair cost and not sign any Goodwill waiver.
- emn13 10y ago
  And that's really sleazy. Tesla may well have done nothing wrong, in which case this is a good deal. But they may also have made a negligent mistake "leading to" the repair, and Tesla might know that - the customer does not. So by using this excessively broad disclaimer, they gain the flexibility to escape liability not just where they're in the right, but also where they may have made costly mistakes - since clearly the it's in the best self-interest of the customer to accept the deal usually, and by the time they find out Tesla may have tricked them, they've already signed.
ktRolster 10y ago
we'll fix your car for you, but only if you keep quiet about [it] I think you're confused about the meaning of 'claims' which in this context means a legal claim; it's not referring to a blog or freedom of speech in any way preventing you from claiming things, just that you won't sue them over it.
zamalek 10y ago
What's shameful is that they need to protect against people taking advantage of their good will in the first place. If you were the customer in the absence of the agreement, after everything that Tesla had done at no cost, would you have taken them to court? In this case it's arguable that they would gone to court: the troll took to social media only because the agreement disallowed legal action. The troll used every possible tactic to his advantage, including an extreme degree of omission. This whole ordeal has inadvertently proven exactly why Tesla has this agreement. Lose when you do; lose when you don't. The agreement isn't there for people like me and you, it's there for people like Niedermayer.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Not taking them to court is one thing, not being able to talk about the agreement is another.
  - function_seven 10y ago
    I haven't seen the full agreement, but grandparent's quote contains no language that prevents the customer from talking about it.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      The agreement has this passage in it: "The Goodwill is being provided to you without any admission of liability or wrongdoing or acceptance of any facts by Tesla, and shall not be treated as or considered evidence of Tesla’s liability with respect to any claim or incidents. You agree to keep confidential our provision of the Goodwill, the terms of this agreement and the incidents or claims leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill. In accepting the Goodwill, you hereby release and discharge Tesla and related persons or entities from any and all claims or damages arising out of or in any way connected with any claims or incidents leading or related to our provision of the Goodwill. You further agree that you will not commence, participate or voluntarily aid in any action at law or in equity or any legal proceeding against Tesla or related persons or entities based upon facts related to the claims or incidents leading to or related to this Goodwill." Which could easily be interpreted by a consumer as barring them from discussing the whole affair, even with the authorities. Which led to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/safety-agency-chides-tesla-for-nondisclosure-agreements-with-customers-2016-06-09?siteid=yhoof2 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/safety-agency-chides-tesla-...
tigershark 10y ago
In other words: you should read more carefully whatever you quote given that the meaning is pretty clear. There is nothing in your quote about keeping quiet and, most importantly, if you don't want to accept the free repair you can still pay. It's really incredible how people pretend to have everything for free, and even when they can actually have it for free they manage to find a reason to complain. I have never ever seen any other car manufacturer paying for the suspensions repairs on a out-of-warranty 100k car.
- trhway 10y ago
  > have never ever seen any other car manufacturer paying for the suspensions repairs on a out-of-warranty 100k car. It happens a lot. You could have just Googled. Manufacturer would pay for the repair, warranty or no warranty, if there was a defect. For example almost all of those 690000 cars were out-of-warranty at the time of the recall: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/toyota-recalls-690-000-vehicles-suspension-glitch-n214121 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/toyota-recalls-690-000... Tesla using NDA to prevent such situation is so childish. I hope Musk would fire that a-hole who came up with the idea (i really hope it wasn't Musk itself). Simple Google search brings this by the way, so there are definitely issues: https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-pulls-left-please-read https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-pulls-le... What important here is that it is not the issues itself that are main risk to the company - after all it is a young car company - it is how the company reacts to them, and such rotten actions like NDA is a really bad style which would cost a lot in the long run. `
  - tigershark 10y ago
    Your example is completely unrelated. This was not a recognised defect. If you really think that every car manufacturer does it then it should be trivial for you to find some source where a single car was repaired for free after 100k km for something that was not a recognised defect. You have plenty of time to prove your thesis.
    - trhway 10y ago
azernik 10y ago
That's a disclaimer of liability, not an NDA. It says "you can't sue us", not "you can't talk about it". This is specifically to avoid court arguments that the free repair is an admission of guilt (which, yes, is the kind of thing that happens in civil cases).
- emn13 10y ago
  If you read my comment, you'll note that I'm merely quoting a part of the agreement. The full agreement is linked in case you're curious about the NDA terms. There have been quite a few commenters that haven't bothered to read even my short comment, let alone the (also rather short) agreement, yet still felt qualified to determine that the NDA clauses aren't present. They are. Personally, due to the overbroad scope I find these liability limiting clauses at least as objectionable as the NDA clauses.
- malz 10y ago
  "You agree to keep confidential" is the key phrase.

malz 10y ago

"You agree to keep confidential ... the incidents or claims leading or related to our provision of the good will" certainly implies that I'm agreeing not to talk about the incident.